Interview on The Mark McCaig Show 11-11-12

This past Sunday I was interviewed on The Mark McCaig Show. You can listen to the interview here, and I'm interested in your feedback.

If he runs, I will support Governor Perry for the Presidency

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

There is nothing quite like a vacation to allow you to clear your head and look at issues and ideas from a fresh perspective.

As I was finishing the first vacation in years during which I have done virtually no work and just focused on fun and family, I picked-up and read a newspaper article about the unfolding Republican Presidential race. As I finished the article, I reached a decision that really surprised me: if Rick Perry runs for President, I will support his candidacy.

Now before I explain why I will support Governor Perry’s candidacy, I need to write a quick disclaimer. I am declaring my support as an individual, and not as a representative of any group or club of which I may be a member or officer. Moreover, no one asked me to do this—this decision and the timing of this post were driven purely by me.

Ok—with that disclaimer behind me, let me explain why I am surprised by my decision, and why I reached decision.

I am surprised primarily by the change of fortunes and political viability of Governor Perry since 2006. Remember, that when he ran for re-election that year, he won with only a 39% plurality in a four-way field—not exactly a conventional predictor of a future presidential candidacy. Then, he pursued at least two policy initiatives that set his base on fire against him: his attempt to impose vaccinations on the young women of Texas without legislative approval; and his advocacy for the Trans-Texas Corridor development. When I ran for an appellate judicial seat in a ten-county district during 2007 and 2008, the negative reaction against the Governor and his political future were expressed openly in virtually every Republican meeting I attended. In fact, few openly predicted he would (let alone advocated that he should) run for re-election in 2010, and many were discussing Senator Hutchison as his successor.

Then, the Tea Party movement exploded. This new movement gave the Governor a new platform that he used effectively to articulate and advocate his political vision, and an attentive audience hungry for the message he was giving. The combination seemed to give the Governor a visible injection of energy and purpose as the 2010 campaign ensued. Eventually, he steamrolled over Senator Hutchison and Debra Medina without a run-off, and over the popular former Houston Mayor, Bill White, in the general election—a truly amazing turnaround. And it was a turnaround based on substance, which mixed the message of growth, frugality and federalism with the accomplishments of his tenure as Governor.

Given where his political fortunes stood a few years ago, and my own reservations over some of his specific decisions and positions over the years, I never thought I would be considering Governor Perry for President. But, in a time when our country needs a President who understands the need to down-size the federal government in order to reduce public debt and return political power to states, local governments and individuals, and in a year when there are obvious short-comings in each of the announced candidates for the Republican nomination, Governor Perry has emerged as the right man at the right time. He is the only candidate who seems to be clearly articulating the vision of the proper role of government at all levels.

Now there will be some who say that his prior political inconsistencies are too many to allow them to support him. To them, I recommend that they remember what Emerson said about “a foolish consistency.” In an essay about Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson asked us to not judge consistency on the day-to-day life decisions and actions that we often make in reaction to events that we had not previously planned to address, but on an individual’s character that can only emerge from looking at a lifetime of decisions and actions. With the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, such perspective is harder and harder to apply. However, if we look at Perry’s career over three decades of public life, his positions evidence a remarkable consistency in support of the economic and social conservatism that forms the core of the modern Republican Party. Moreover, his stated positions are closer to the vision for the “new” Republican Party that Reagan first espoused in 1977 than any of the other candidates in this year’s field.

As I write this post, there are two concerns I still have about a Perry candidacy, which I hope he and his team will address if he chooses to run. First, he must address the schizophrenic view of government held by most Americans—the view that simultaneously wants a smaller government that lives within its means, and low taxes, but wants no change to the government benefits they, or their family members, currently enjoy. Over the last 100 years, we gradually have allowed the federal government to use public tax dollars to provide charity to the less-fortunate and to underwrite economic risks—the risks associated with disability, retirement, health, home purchases, a college education, small business creation, and many others. Any Republican, who wants to beat Obama and actually obtain a mandate to lead this country through the changes needed to address the size and debt of the federal government, must explain to the independent voters who leaned Republican before 2008, but who voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, how these changes will affect their lives—how will charity be provided to the less fortunate, and how will the risks of currently underwritten by government be addressed? Will government have a role? If so, what level of government will have that role, and what role will that level of government have? If government’s role is to be reduced, what will be expected from each individual in order to provide for charity and to protect against the risks of life that we all will inevitably face? If the answers to these questions are not clearly articulated, a Perry Presidency may not ever occur—but if it does, I fear it will fail.

Second, Governor Perry must address the concern that many outside of Texas will have in electing another Texas Republican so soon after both Bush Presidencies. Part of this concern will be addressed by the story of Texas’ economic growth during his tenure. However, I think Governor Perry also needs to consider a running mate who is from another region of the country, and preferably one who is addressing the current economic and governmental problems effectively. Ideally, one of the Republican Governors from Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio or New Jersey, would fit these criteria while also giving the ticket a better chance of picking up a state that Obama carried in 2008.

I know that this post (and its early timing) will surprise some of my friends and allies, as well as some within our party with whom I’ve had disagreements in the past, but I feel that, as Governor Perry makes his decision, it is important that he know the breadth of support he will have. To that end, I feel it is important for many of us in Texas to indicate our position about his candidacy now—one way or another. So, for what it’s worth, I pledge my support to his candidacy if he chooses to run.

One Voter’s Checklist for Candidates for the New CD 36

This column originally appeared over at Big Jolly Politics.

Well, it’s that time of year again—the start of campaign season!

This time around it looks like we are going to have a lot excitement in Texas and local politics: Governor Perry may run for President and Lt. Governor Dewhurst may run for the U.S. Senate (or decide to wait and see about his chances to become Governor), which will start an avalanche of moves across the state by other elected officials to run for statewide offices; there is a wide-open U.S. Senate race for the first time in at least a decade, which is attracting a varied and interesting field of candidates; and we now have finalized redistricting plans, which have created four new congressional districts and many re-drawn boundaries. Adding to the sense of frenzy that is building is the new filing deadlines for the March, 2012 Primary, which now runs from mid-November to mid-December, 2011. That means everyone from prospective precinct chairs to U.S. Senate candidates will have to make their moves soon to start raising money, get petitions signed, and qualify for office.

My home has been drawn into the new Congressional District 36. Although I was not a fan of the boundaries of this new district because it split the Clear Lake region of the Houston Metropolitan Area into three districts and combined East Harris County with many rural communities whose ties are closer to Beaumont and Lufkin than to Houston, it is now a reality. This new district, which has a recent Republican voting strength of over 65%, should elect a Republican Congressman, which means that it presents our local GOP with a tremendous and rare opportunity to send our unique voice to Washington while shaping the future of the communities of this district for the next generation. We need to use this opportunity wisely.

Since the proposed map was unveiled, I’ve been involved in several conversations about the new district, including an informative presentation this past week by Eric Opiela to the Clear Lake Area Republicans during our June meeting. Because East Harris County comprises the largest population center within the new district, it is presumed that there will be a lot of interest from our area politicians in running for the new district, as well as in running for other offices that may open-up because their incumbents will run for the new district. Based on what I am hearing, I suspect that we will see at least 5 to 10 candidates on the Republican primary ballot, and there probably will be a run-off.

Before anyone approaches me for support or an endorsement, let me make this clear: for now, I am staying neutral. However, I have thought about this race a lot, and have developed my own checklist that I will expect any serious candidate to address during the campaign, and I am going to share my list with you.

First and foremost, don’t get into this race unless you are qualified to run. By this, I don’t mean that you have to have run for office or held public office in the past (though I am sure that would help). Here is what I mean:

* The Republicans in this district are culturally conservative. If you are not pro-life, if you do not support gun rights and personal property rights, and if you don’t believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman—regardless of your position on any other “social” issue—please don’t enter this race. You won’t win, and you’ll end up diverting debate time and campaign “talking points” to issues that are not really open to debate among these voters.

* Regardless of how many grassroots volunteers you think you can muster, it probably will cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to win this primary (and more to run the general election). If you don’t have this amount of money personally available to spend on your campaign without depleting your life savings, or if you can’t raise this amount of money within the federal campaign limits by mid-December, 2011, don’t run. First, you never get as much volunteer work as is promised; and second, the size of this district, and the fact that there are at least 3 major media markets (Houston, Beaumont, and Lufkin) and many other small markets, makes this race structurally expensive for any candidate to wage seriously.

* Unless you have the support of your family to run (and then to work in, or commute to and from, Washington every week if you win), and unless you have the support of your employer or partners (or have the means not to need employment) to spend the time to campaign, don’t run. A race like this, with the distances you will have to cover to mount a serious campaign, is a full-time job for several months—and if you win, for over a year through the general election.

* Unless you believe you can do this job as well or better than the other candidates, and unless you really want to work in Washington and commit the time and effort it will take to do the job correctly, don’t run. If you want to run or debate to promote an issue, or if you want to get active in politics, there are plenty of campaigns to work for, and local offices to run for, don’t start by running for this type of office—999 times out of 1,000 you will lose and you will probably burn yourself out in the process.

Now, if any candidate still wants to run after thinking about these basic qualifications, here are the substantive points I will ask them to address:

Do you know and understand the district and its voters?

A map of the district can be found here, and by then going to “Basic Plan” and clicking on “PlanC 185”. The district is comprised of East Harris County, and 8 other counties between here and the Louisiana border. Although Lufkin and Beaumont are physically outside the district, their media markets impact the towns in the district, which include Orange, Winnie, Vidor, Jasper, Kountze, Newton, Woodville, and Livingston, as well as closer towns in Chambers and Liberty counties that are part of the Houston metropolitan area.

The major employers and industries include two ports in Houston and Orange; the energy industry from the wellhead, to the pipeline, to the refinery, to electricity production; timber, farming and ranching; small manufacturing and businesses; and recreation and parks in the Big Thicket.

There are many small towns and school districts with local governments and diverse local needs, as well as larger cities and towns like Pasadena, Baytown, Cleveland and Orange. You will need to educate yourself on the diverse issues these communities face, and their diverse interests in and interactions with the federal government.

Do you understand the different responsibilities between the federal government and the state and local governments, generally, and as they affect this district and its voters?

We conservatives all say we want a strict construction of the Constitution and want respect for the 10th Amendment, but you will need to understand what that really means and how that affects the new district.

Remember that the Constitution has been amended at least 9 times to expand the scope of responsibility of the federal government to include, among other things, authority over civil rights issues and the power to impose an income tax. So, even a strict construction of federal authority must recognize broader limits than existed in 1789. Moreover, the people in this district live with the federal government in their lives on a daily basis, from environmental, agricultural, energy, and transportation regulations, to small business loans and taxes. When something goes wrong, or when a constituent wants action related to a regulated activity, they will look to you for action—theory about the 10th Amendment won’t matter to them at those times.

You will need to be able to articulate your plan for addressing the real issues that these constituents face, and how you will address them as their Congressman.

If you believe in reducing the size and cost of the federal government, what is your vision as to how the activities currently addressed by federal programs will be addressed in the future?

Now if the GOP is successful in finally reducing the size and cost of government through the Ryan Plan, or any similar approach, the next question your constituents will have is “now what?” How will returning power to states, local governments, the private sector and individuals affect them, their families, their schools, their towns and their businesses?

You need to have an understanding of this district as to what changes will impact the lives of your constituents, and you need to articulate a vision as to how these changes will improve their lives and their communities. Then you need to work with local leaders to help them create transition plans to maximize the use of the new responsibilities they will have in a way that improves their communities.

What are the most pressing issues facing our nation, which are within the scope of responsibility of the federal government to address?

These voters will want to know how you will use your vote in Congress to address the great issues of the day, including whether to raise the debt ceiling and how to control the national debt; what to do with Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; how to wind-down the foreign wars and return civil liberties that have been limited since 9/11 without jeopardizing our national defense and homeland security; how to address border security and illegal immigration while maintaining our historic openness to newcomers who want to become Americans, and many other issues.

You need to develop a list of the issues about which you feel strongly, and then be able to articulate in 30 seconds why those issues are important and how you will address them if elected. In a field of 10 candidates, you’ll be lucky to ever get 30 seconds to talk on any given issue, so you must be prepared to effectively communicate your views quickly.

How will you carry-out your work in Washington?

Finally, you need to soberly reflect on the fact that, if you win, you will have to actually work as a Congressman. What will you do, and how will you do it? How will you divide your time and structure the management of your office to simultaneously participate in legislative committees, educate yourself on pending legislation and vote, communicate with your constituents, and provide constituent service—all with the goal of accomplishing what you ran to accomplish? Where will you live, where will your family live, and how will you accommodate both?

Frankly, I don’t want to vote for someone who has not thought about this last issue, because if you have no experience or plan for running your office and managing your time effectively, you will not be an effective legislator for this district.

Well there you have it, my checklist for considering the candidates for the new congressional district. I am sure that each of you can think of other points to add to your own checklists as you evaluate the candidates over the next few months, and my list probably will grow and change during that time, but it reflects my starting point—that is, I don’t want to waste time educating someone, simply fulfilling someone’s life-long ambition to hold public office, or feed someone’s need for power and prestige. Instead, I want to use this opportunity to elect someone who will effectively represent us and actually promote the Republican agenda of returning responsibility back to individuals, communities and states. The time for talk and posturing is long over.

What is America’s “National Interest” in 2011?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Let’s face it, there are so many unsettled issues as we enter the 2012 election cycle that it sometimes seems overwhelming: the sluggish economy and staggering public and private debt burdens here and in Europe; the decaying infrastructure—both human, and capital—throughout the United States, and its relative decline in comparison with China and other nations; the continued demographic evolution of the United States, and its impact on society and politics; the proper role and size of government at all levels in the United States; the impairment of Japan’s economy and the political vacuum that is creating in Asia; the emergence of new centers of economic and geopolitical power, as well as competing models of governance, in Asia and South America; the long-term conversion of the world economy away from reliance on oil and coal as fuel sources; the moral and intellectual schisms within Western societies and the continuing friction between Western and Islamic societies; and the continued U.S. engagement in military conflicts throughout the Islamic World just as much of the Arab region is engaged in civil rebellion—just to name a few of those issues.

I don’t pretend to have an answer to all of these specific issues, or to the myriad of sub-issues that they spawn, and it’s getting clearer by the day that none of our current political leaders have these answers either. But I am certain of one thing: we won’t find the answer to these issues until we confront the most fundamental of issues—that is, we must decide what our “national interest” is. So, I am going to throw caution and humility to the wind for a moment and give you my take on this fundamental issue in an effort to start the conversation.

I believe that any formulation of our “national interest” must focus on what the United States is, and what it hopes to be. To understand who we are and who we hope to be, we must reflect on our history and understand how we got to this point in time.

Americans, through most of their history, viewed themselves as being at once exceptional in the history of the world and indispensable to resolving the problems that had afflicted mankind, while also believing that to continue to be exceptional and indispensable, America must hold the other nations of the world at arms-length. America would be the world’s lighthouse, providing light and guidance to the ships of the world—a light for some that they would use to find their way to our shores and join our community, and for others, a light that they would use to navigate their own course through history. Sometimes, when in distress, we would send rescue ships to assist the travelers who needed more help than our mere light could provide (as we did in Europe twice in the 20th Century, and as we did throughout the world during the Cold War), but we were never to interfere with their own journey.

To be that lighthouse, and to maintain that constant beacon for the world, America, itself, had to remain strong—internally and externally; socially, economically and politically—because a lighthouse becomes useless if its light is allowed to dim or go dark.

The light we were to provide the world was, as John F. Kennedy described it in his Inaugural Address, “the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” And the strength of that light came from the society our Settlers created, our Founders institutionalized, and succeeding generations expanded and preserved: a society of free men and women who built lasting relationships through families, neighborhoods, and local governments; a society protected by successive levels of governments delegated with limited powers to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—states to provide a basic infrastructure for our communities and for the protection of our property and our person, and a federal government to provide for a commercial infrastructure and for our national defense.

Through the best of intentions, we have allowed that light to dim. The paradox is that the light has dimmed not because we tried to do too little, but because we tried to do too much. Whether it was the creation and expansion of social programs designed to accelerate and institutionalize public charity, or the insertion of our military into countries in order to force an evolution toward liberty, we sapped the very energy that fed the light. By delegating the role of families, neighborhoods and local private institutions and governments to the state and federal governments, we destroyed the local relationships that are needed for charity to work, while we simultaneously overburdened governments at all levels to the extent that they now do nothing very well, and they do it by spending money they don’t have. Meanwhile, by inserting ourselves into every conflict around the world and making each conflict our own, we diminished the value of the very principles we have fought for, ignored the need for different societies to navigate their own courses to liberty, and further depleted our own resources.

It is time to re-energize the beacon—that must be our “National Interest” over the next generation. To brighten the light, we must recognize that we can only be a beacon for liberty if we re-commit ourselves to liberty and economic strength at home, and to a defensive engagement with the world to secure that all people can journey toward liberty through their own history and culture. This re-commitment is not a retreat from charity or into isolationism, but rather a re-invigoration of the relationships needed for true charity to work among free people, and of our commitment to light the way to liberty for all mankind. It is not an abandonment of our fellow citizen, or of our commitment to bear the burden to support our friends in the survival and success of liberty. Instead, it is a renewal of the proper role of each individual, and of our nation, in these timeless efforts going forward.

Seen in this way, our national interest requires us to realign the role and responsibility of governments at all levels toward returning responsibility to individuals and local private and public agencies, and for everyone to live within their means; to modernize our infrastructure through public coordination of private investments, which must include the total re-structuring of the way we educate our children and how we pay for that system; and to re-orient our foreign policy and defense structure to promote liberty through defending our system and our way of life for all to see, and by promoting trade and relationships only with those who seek a course toward liberty for their people, while still maintaining the ability to swiftly and effectively come to the rescue of our friends when the survival or success of liberty truly hangs in the balance. If we adopt these general principles as our “national interest,” I think you can see that the many intractable issues we face begin to answer themselves.

Ok, now I’ve started the conversation—what do you think?

Will we be the “masters of our fates” in 2012?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs, and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Men at some time are the masters of their fates:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, we are underlings.

Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

On Monday night, I sat and watched the debate among the currently-announced Republican candidates for the Presidency. As of this writing, I am still searching for a candidate to support.

I am not still searching because, like the media continues to argue, the current field is inadequate. No, this field, together with others who are still openly considering a run at the Presidency, is filled with highly qualified, and highly gifted men and women who represent virtually every facet of modern conservative thought in this country. Each one of them would make a better President than the current occupant of the White House.

Moreover, I believe each of these men and women understand the urgency of the fiscal problems facing this country and the profound impact they will have on our future, and the world’s future, if they are not addressed immediately.

What is lacking in this field is not purpose or courage; it is, rather, an understanding of how we can correct the problems we face and still function as a society of free men and women. That is, when all is said and done, and all the budgets have been cut and the programs have been dismantled or restructured, how will we be the “masters” of our “fates” going forward. Unless the next President formulates the answer to that question correctly, and persuades the American people that his or her answer provides the correct path forward, he or she will fail. Unless the American people understand the new path they must follow and commit themselves to follow that path, eventually old habits will re-emerge and new federal schemes will be created to address our many problems, our appetite for larger and larger government will swallow our future, and we will return to our self-imposed position as “underlings” to another “Colossus”.

The answer the next President must formulate should be based on an inherent trust in you and me to govern ourselves, our families, and our neighborhoods without “guidance” from a “Colossus” in Austin or Washington. Then, we must look in the mirror and commit ourselves to live as truly free men and women: as men and women willing to sacrifice and be responsible for ourselves, our families, and our communities; as men and women who are willing to do the important work of governing our communities, rather than delegating that work to others.

If the next President has that trust in his fellow citizens, and if we make the commitment to accept the responsibilities that come with that trust, then we can truly limit government in size, scope and cost to its proper functions at every level. We, then, will be the masters of our own fates and give our children the chance to be the masters of their fates in the future. We, then, will be the society our Settlers and Founders intended.

When I find that candidate, he or she will have my full support.